Registered Client Service Associate

Savage, Wetherington join Ameriprise Financial. Logan Savage and Jake Wetherington join Ameriprise Financial Services through Plan4it Advisors in Wilson and Washington. Ameriprise Financial Jake Wetherington and Logan Savage have joined Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC as a financial advisors.Ameriprise Financial Logan Savage and Jake Wetherington have joined Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC as a financial advisors. They are joining Plan4it Advisors, a private wealth advisory practice of Ameriprise Financial Services in Wilson and Washington. Their practice also includes advisors Michael Wetherington and Brenda Heath and support staff Tommie Dildy and Laura Wetherington. "We are thrilled to join Ameriprise," Savage said. "The company has built a great reputation for financial planning that matches our core focus. We're excited for the opportunity to provide an even better experience for our clients." "We are deeply committed to serving the full range of our clients' financial needs and providing excellent customer service, Wetherington said. "As our practice continues to grow, we will be able to help more Wilson and Washington residents reach their financial goals."

Citizens sues Ameriprise, accusing ex-advisor of breaking employment contracts. Citizens Securities is seeking a restraining order against Ameriprise and Darrell Smith in federal court in Massachusetts, alleging that Smith solicited former clients shortly after changing firms. October 19, 2026 Want a quick summary? Citizens Bank has filed a lawsuit against Ameriprise Financial, alleging that the firm recruited a former advisor who subsequently violated his employment contract by misappropriating trade secrets and aggressively soliciting the bank's clients. Citizen Securities (a broker/dealer wholly-owned subsidiary of Citizens Bank) filed the suit against Ameriprise and its former employee, Darrell Smith, in Massachusetts federal court last week, and claimed Ameriprise used "unfair methods of competition and committed unfair acts" when allegedly using Citizens' trade secrets. According to the complaint, Citizens hired Smith in 2008 as an advisor, working in several Massachusetts bank branches. In the suit, Citizens alleged that most of its advisors were based in bank branches and worked with referred clients (and thus weren't expected to build their own books of business). Citizens also alleged that as part of his employment, Smith agreed not to disclose what he learned about clients after leaving the firm, and that he wouldn't be allowed to solicit Citizens clients for one year after leaving. At the time he left, Citizens estimated he managed about $194 million in client assets. According to court documents, Smith resigned from Citizens on Sept. 25 and immediately joined Ameriprise (where he'd worked between 2003 and 2007, according to SEC records). Citizens claims that in the days after quitting, Smith reached out to his former clients, asking them to move their accounts to Ameriprise; the firm said Smith started with the largest accounts he managed. According to Citizens, Smith "pressed" clients to make quick decisions and even visited them at their homes. "Upon information and belief, Mr. Smith called one client and the client's family 12 times after he resigned," the complaint read. "He told clients that Ameriprise had brought in a team to help him move his clients, that the team would leave at the end of the week of October 5, 2026, and that they had to decide by then." According to Citizens, Smith didn't need to copy information to solicit clients, but "knew from his work at Citizens which clients he served and how to reach them." Citizens said that by Oct. 14, about $37 million in assets had left Citizens, and the firm suspects they moved to Ameriprise. Citizens purports that Ameriprise assembled personnel to help Smith move his clients to Ameriprise, and that they planned the transfers before Smith resigned. Additionally, Citizens noted that the firm already took Ameriprise to court this year regarding Scott Coppock, another advisor who moved firms. According to Citizens, Coppock testified that "Ameriprise knew he was leaving Citizens and helped him move clients' assets after he resigned," and that a Massachusetts court ordered Coppock not to contact former Citizens clients that hadn't already moved. Citizens claims Ameriprise was aware of this injunction before Smith moved. Representatives from Citizens declined to comment. Officials from Ameriprise did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication. In the complaint, Citizens is seeking a restraining order and an injunction prohibiting Smith from contacting Citizens' clients and from using Citizens' client records "whether taken from Citizens' records or reproduced from memory," among other demands. Senior Reporter, Wealth Management Patrick Donachie is a senior reporter for Wealth Management, covering federal and state regulation, litigation and M&A deals in financial services. Patrick was born in Staten Island, and now lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Wall Street's dirty secret: why your account size determines the quality of advice you get. October 1 2026 The small client problem Wall Street does not want you to know about. I have been covering this story since the year 2000. I wrote a column in 2005 called "Call Center Hell" about Merrill Lynch rounding up its smaller customers and herding them off to centralized service centers staffed by inexperienced personnel. FINRA investigated those call centers in Hopewell, New Jersey and Jacksonville, Florida. It was a disaster then, and the same game is being played today, just with a shinier name. Now Ameriprise has rolled out what they are calling a Virtual Advice Unit. Let that sink in. They are literally creating a separate tier of service for clients they have decided are not profitable enough. They are paying advisors a flat $1,000 to hand off their smaller clients to this unit, provided those clients stay there for at least a year. That is the buyout. That is what your financial relationship is worth to them. What the industry really thinks about smaller investors. I have attended dozens of industry conferences over the years. Without fail, there is always some practice management expert on stage telling advisors the same thing. Fire your small clients. They are a PITA, a pain in the asset. Your business will be better without them. That is the culture inside these firms. It is not a secret on Wall Street. It is only a secret to the people getting shuffled around. Here is how the compensation structure actually enforces this attitude: * Merrill Lynch slashed advisor pay to 20% on accounts under $500,000 * Merrill Lynch pays nothing on households below $250,000 in assets * Ameriprise is paying advisors a one-time $1,000 fee to offload smaller clients to their virtual unit * Wirehouse firms routinely eliminate or sharply reduce advisor compensation on smaller accounts, removing any financial incentive to serve those clients well When you remove the financial incentive, you remove the attention. It is that simple. Who is actually answering the phone in these units. Ameriprise's official pitch for the Virtual Advice Unit says clients will receive "personal advice backed by the firm's innovative capabilities, deep resources, and high standards of service." That is marketing copy designed to make you feel good about being deprioritized. Here is the reality. These centralized units are staffed by entry-level employees. Go look at the LinkedIn job listings. Pass your Series 65, earn a modest salary, and get to work. These young workers are not experienced portfolio managers. They are trainees. Your account becomes part of their on-the-job education. The incentive structure tells the whole story: * Senior advisors are financially penalized for keeping smaller accounts * The clients who get moved have no say in the transition * The new service tier is positioned as a benefit, not a demotion * Firms collect ongoing fees while delivering a reduced standard of care What this means for your financial future. If you have a smaller account at one of these major wirehouses, you need to understand where you stand in their business model. You are not a priority. You are overhead. The advisor who shook your hand and said they would take care of you has been given a financial incentive to hand you off to someone with far less experience. This is not a new problem. It is a structural problem baked into how these firms make money. The conflict of interest is not subtle. It is the entire business model. When I started my firm, I made a decision. Minvest is not doing this. Minvest is not firing small clients. Minvest is not shuffling people off to a phone bank staffed by rookies. The fact that I have to keep making this case, decade after decade, tells you everything you need to know about how Wall Street actually views everyday investors.